[CCWG-ACCT] Community not sufficiently representative???

[Seun Ojedeji]

Hi,

I think we should make a distinction; there is difference between having
control on names related policies and having control over entire ICANN
accountability which goes beyond the walls of names and also beyond just
policies.

The accountability mechanism that has been proposed does effectively create
a power shift to the community, the PDP on the other hand maintains power
with where it should rightly be (based on ratification requirement).

The way the 2 scenarios is evaluated against representation would certainly
be different as the risks are not the same. The way the president responds
to change in states constitution vis the national constitution would sure
differ.

Regards

Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 6 Oct 2015 22:50, "Avri Doria" <avri at acm.org> wrote:

>
>
> On 06-Oct-15 17:41, Jeff Neuman wrote:
> > P.S. For any future Consensus Policy, the Board has opened up a new
> > area of argument if a contracted party does not want to follow
> > it…..namely that the Consensus Policy was not developed through a
> > sufficiently representative policy process.
>
> Indeed.  and I can just imagine how this will play in IRP decisions.
>
> avri
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151007/92556e57/attachment.html>